1. MIC-1 PharmaSeq Results Statistical Analysis Luciane T Kagohara and John Zhu

2. Histogram of parameters (PharmaSeq vs JHU)
PharmaSeq-all
JHU
PharmaSeq < 3
All data
normal
Cancer

3. MIC-1 X Cancer diagnosis
AUC=0.64;
Sensitivity=100.0%; Specificity=0.0%;
PPV=68.6%
AUC=0.60;
Sensitivity=100.0%; Specificity=0.0%;
PPV=67.9%
PharmaSeq
JHU

4. MIC-1 X Clinical stage PharmaSeq JHU AUC=0.57;
Sensitivity=31.2%; Specificity=80.9%;
PPV=59.5%
AUC=0.56;
Sensitivity=27.8%; Specificity=80.3%;
PPV=55.7%
PharmaSeq
JHU

5. MIC-1 X Gleason score PharmaSeq JHU AUC=0.59;
Sensitivity=18.0%; Specificity=90.2%;
PPV=62.5%
AUC=0.47;
Sensitivity=0.0%; Specificity=100.0%;
PPV=NA%
AUC=0.66;
Sensitivity=0.0%; Specificity=99.7%;
PPV=0.0%
AUC=0.45;
Sensitivity=0.0%; Specificity=100.0%;
PPV=NA
PharmaSeq
JHU

6. MIC-1 X PSA PharmaSeq JHU AUC=0.56;
Sensitivity=100.0%; Specificity=0.0%;
PPV=60.6%
AUC=0.62;
Sensitivity=95.4%; Specificity=10.8%;
PPV=63.3%
AUC=0.61;
Sensitivity=0.0%; Specificity=99.8%;
PPV=0.0%
AUC=0.64;
Sensitivity=1.1%; Specificity=99.8%;
PPV=50.0%
PharmaSeq
JHU

7. MIC-1 X T stage PharmaSeq JHU AUC=0.57; AUC=0.52;
Sensitivity=0.75%; Specificity=99.1%;
PPV=33.3%
AUC=0.52;
Sensitivity=0.0%; Specificity=100.0%;
PPV=NA%
PharmaSeq
JHU

8. MIC-1 X N stage PharmaSeq JHU AUC=0.68;
Sensitivity=0.0%; Specificity=99.2%;
PPV=0.0%
AUC=0.67;
Sensitivity=0.0%; Specificity=99.2%;
PPV=0.0%
PharmaSeq
JHU

9. MIC-1 X recurrence PharmaSeq JHU AUC=0.54;
Sensitivity=2.1%; Specificity=100.0%;
PPV=10.0%
AUC=0.54;
Sensitivity=0.05%; Specificity=100.0%;
PPV=NA%
PharmaSeq
JHU

10. Pearson correlation Coefficients (all JHU+ PharmaSeq Mic-1)
pMic1: pharmaseq Mic1 data;
Ln= ln transformed JHU data

11. SUMMARY
The current results show that, at least for MIC-1, regular ELISA and the P-chip are reliable and reproducible. The statistical analysis (univariate logistic regression) using both sources for measuring serum levels of MIC-1 resulted in very similar ROC curves for the different variables evaluated.
Differences between ROC curves for Gleason score
We believe that the differences between JHU and PharmaSeq results can be explained by the fact that some of the results for the first batch of JHU samples were not included in the analysis. Since these cases are very early stage (GS 3+3 or 3+4), it might explain the differences.